Privatizing American Prisons for Corporate Profit? Exploitation of Crime and the Criminal System

Privatizing American Prisons for Corporate Profit? Exploitation of Crime and the Criminal System

       The prison population has grown at a staggeringly high rate of 600 percent since 1973. Various Political agendas and policies have been interjected into the Correctional system. This agenda influences our laws and the public perceptions about dealing with Crime and Punishment, When criminals keeps returning to society without having been rehabilitated ,hence committing the same crimes over and over again, and being returned back to the prisons, it not only costs us tax payer money but the free population’s safety is put into jeopardy.

        Is it a coincidence that the rise in the building of Privatized prisons coincides with the prison population boom? What solutions to recidivism are there? Do corporations such as Criminal Corporation of America (CCA) have strong motivations to manipulate the public and the political system into policies that are seemingly prudent but wind up costly, weakening services undermining rehabilitation, and do not reduce recidivism? In several reports, the Pew organization and prominent experts in various high profile positions have pointed out facts that will help us to determine whether or not these privatized prisons are fulfilling their claims and promises of efficiency and quality throughout their expansive growth during last twenty years.

                                          Purposes for prisons in the US justice system

       Beginning in the 17th century, merchant shippers pioneered in the expansion of transportation as a form of punishment. Once institutionalized, transportation remained a standard form of punishment for well over the next 200 years. For half or maybe more of this period, it was the single most significant sentence for serious offenders. At no or little or no cost to the state, shippers would transport felons to North America. They would make their profit in the middle Atlantic colonies by selling their human cargo into a form of limited-term slavery to tobacco and cotton farmers who were desperate for labor. This system remained popular and profitable up to the American Revolution, at which time it was suspended (Feeley, M.M. 2002)

      The creation of the prison as a method for punishment in the United States was developed in the late eighteenth century. The Walnut Street Jail, established in 1790 was the first prison designed to house sentenced offenders in the United States. The reformation of the offender was its primary objective. Inmates were expected to read the Bible, reflect on their transgressions, and do penance for their crimes, hence, penitentiary was established as the term used for secure facilities that held offenders serving a criminal sentence (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

       Penology is the study of punishment, emphasized the principal function of implementing punishment for agencies handling criminal offenders after their sentencing (Seiter, R. P. 2008). However, this term generally included a much broader focus than simply punishment; in effect it covered the theories, activities, and operations of carrying out the criminal sentence, be they in a prison or in the community, criminal sanctions were applied on a regular basis (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

    The mission of corrections has traditionally been to implement court prescribed sentences for criminal violators or to carry out the sentence of the court. However; most contemporary correctional administrators recognize a much broader mission and responsibility. The more complete mission of corrections is to protect society. Protection of society is accomplished through a combination of surveillance and control of offenders, of treatment and rehabilitative services, and of incapacitation during the service of a prison sentence. “The sentencing goals of corrections are: punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution” (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

       Punishment is necessary for deterrence, and the presence of punishment encourages rehabilitation, but there is a negative side as well because; punishment is also reactive in that it focuses on the act of the crime, giving little attention to an offender’s particular circumstances or needs, be they psychological or educational (Seiter, R. P. 2008)..

     Deterrence is a correctional goal focused on future actions (or the avoidance of certain actions) by both individuals and society. For general deterrence to be effective the punishment must be visible and the public must believe that if they commit a crime they will be caught and punished, and that the punishment will be carried out uniformly, consequently the benefits of the crime will not outweigh the punishment (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

     Incapacitation is thought of as reducing offenders’ ability or capacity to commit further crimes. , through the restriction of incarceration; society is protected from the offender’s poten-tial criminals’ acts (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

     Rehabilitation is the goal of corrections to rehabilitate offenders, returning them to society better able to avoid criminality and less likely to commit further crimes. Finally there is restitution, restitution is concerned with acts by which criminals make right the wrongs they have committed, or repay society or their victims for their wrongs (Seiter, R. P. 2008). All of these components are part of our correctional system and are important to the contributions of crime reduction in the United States.

                               An Examination of Current Conditions in US Prisons

In a report is based on research by Dr. Bruce Western and Dr. Becky Pettit, jointly authored by the Economic Mobility Project and the Public Safety Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Over the past 30 years, the United States has experienced explosive growth in its incarcerated population. “The Pew Center on the States” reported in 2008 that more than 1 in 100 adults are now behind bars in America, by far the highest rate of any nation. The direct cost of this imprisonment boom, in dollars, has been staggering: state correctional costs quadrupled over the past two decades and now top $50 billion a year, consuming 1 in every 15 general fund dollars” (Western, B. & Pettit, B. 2010).

      Prior to 1972, the number of prisoners had grown at a steady rate that closely tracked growth rates in the general population. Between 1925 (the first year national prison statistics were officially collected) and 1972, the number of state prisoners increased from 85,239 to 174,379.2 However, starting in 1973, the prison population and imprisonment rates began to rise precipitously. This change was fueled by stiffer sentencing and release laws and decisions by courts and parole boards, which sent more offenders to prison and kept them there for longer terms (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

      In the nearly five decades between 1925 and 1972, the prison population increased by 105 percent; however, in the four decades since then, the number of prisoners grew by huge 705 percent. By including local jail inmates to state and federal prisoners, the Public Safety Performance Project calculated in 2008 that the overall incarcerated population had reached an all-time high, with 1 in 100 adults in the United States living behind bars (The Pew Charitable Trusts 2010).

      The prison populations is made up of predominantly male (88.4 percent), they are non-white (64 percent), and young (61.8 percent are under age 35), and have a high school education or less (86.9 percent). Forty-six percent were nonviolent recidivists and 41 percent had a current or prior violent offense. Most (73 percent) had previously been on probation or in jail or prison. (82 percent) had prior drug use and (93 percent) had been involved in substance abuse treatment. A significant number (33 percent) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime. (59 percent) are poor, with reporting a monthly income of less than $1,000 (less than 12,000 a year). Over one-third of the prison population is reported to have a physical or mental disability (Seiter, R. P. 2008).

     From 2000 through 2007, local jail administrators reported 8,110 inmate deaths in custo-dy. Deaths in jails increased each year, from 905 in 2000 to 1,103 in 2007. Annually, more than 80% of the nation’s jails reported no deaths in their custody. Deaths from any illness, including AIDS, accounted for more than half (53%) of all deaths in local jails. Heart disease was the leading cause among illness deaths in local jails (42%). Suicide was the single leading cause of unnatural deaths in local jails, accounting for 29% of all jail deaths between 2000 and 2007, but the suicide rate declined from 49 to 36 deaths per 100,000 inmates. Between 2000 and 2007, the suicide rates were higher in small jails than large jails. In jails holding 50 or fewer inmates, the suicide rate was 169 per 100,000; in the largest jails, the suicide rate was 27 per 100,000 inmates. After adjusting for differences associated with the age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, suicide was the only cause of death that occurred at a higher rate in local jails than in the U.S. general population (Noonan, M. 2010).

              Programs Which Seek To Reduce Recidivism In Modern Prisons.

       Recidivism, or criminal re-offense, is closely related to rehabilitation through treatment programs in that if a treatment program is successful the offender will be less likely to re-offend (Bower, B. M., n. a.). By taking into consideration a diverse range of individual personality traits, rather than focusing solely on more demographic-type variables, and adding these measurements to the models already being used to predict recidivism, corrections departments became more capable of identifying and targeted youth who were at the highest risk for recidivism. Research along these lines has contributed noteworthy exploration and literature to the topic of preventing juvenile recidivism. This increase of knowledge has also provided additional guidance for improving treatment programming within juvenile detention centers and rehabilitation facilities (Bower, B. M., n.a.)

      Over the past two years to reduce recidivism rates, state lawmakers enacted both a 60-day credit for people in prison who complete certain programs and a grant program for local community corrections agencies to increase success rates among those under supervision by 20 percent. The measures are expected to avert $80 million in state spending over the next five years. Kansas policymakers worked with the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and with the support of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U.S Department of Justice, and the Public Safety along with Performance Project of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Center on the States, to pursue a justice reinvestment strategy. With the prison population projected to increase by 22 percent, policymakers were faced with the prospect of appropriating nearly $500 million over ten years to build and operate approximately 1,292 additional prison beds. Kansas policymakers instead identified another path and applied a justice reinvestment strategy (Council of State Governments Justice Center2007)

     Another project was in the State of Texas, in order to reduce recidivism rates and avert further growth in the prison population, state lawmakers enacted a package of criminal justice policies to improve success rates for people on community supervision, expand the capacity of treatment and diversion programs, and enhance the use of parole for low-risk offenders. Policymakers reinvested $241 million (which would have otherwise been appropriated for the construction and operation of new prisons) for additional treatment and diversion programs. By enacting these policies, the state saved $210.5 million for the 2008–2009 fiscal bienniums. The good news here is if the new treatment and diversion programs are successful and no additional prisons are constructed, the state will save an additional $233 million (http://nicic.gov).

                                   Rehabilitative programs in prisons.

        Rehabilitation consists of a planned intervention intended to change behavior. Various methods have been used over the years, including treatment, job training, and cognitive therapy. Correctional agencies offer psychological counseling to help offenders understand the factors that activate certain behaviors. Anger management help offenders recognize dangerous situations in which they possibly will act unlawfully. Sensitivity training, as part of rehabilitations purpose is to get offenders to understand the impact of their criminal actions on the victims and their families. Correctional programs try to build competencies and insights in offenders that may assist them in avoiding problems that heighten their likelihood of committing crime, these programs are designed to help offenders to increase their educational level, teaching and improv-ing offenders’ decision making skills, an important part of this program developing vocational skill, so that the prisoner will have an alternative way to make a living, other than criminal acts. In the past researchers have given much more attention to the effects of deterrence and incapaci-tation oriented approaches to the crime problem (Worrall, J. L. 2008).

        An interrelated limitation of rehabilitation is that it can take time and cost a significant amount of money. This means that people need to be patient and realize that behavior does not change immediately (Worrall, J. L. 2008). The most-researched method of reasoning training is known as Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R). The R&R training curriculum was developed by Robert Ross and Elizabeth Fabiano. Based on several cognitive theories, the training program relies on audiovisual presentations, reasoning exercises, games, and group discussions in an effort to change clients’ decision-making processes. The program comprises thirty-five 90- to 120-minute sessions. Eight specific subject modules are used to teach specific skills. The training begins with problem-solving training and concludes with values enhancement (Worrall, J. L. 2008). Some of the components are problems solving, social skills, negotiation skills, managing emotions, creative thinking, critical and value enhancement. R&R appears to work rather well for low-risk offenders; unfortunately the program’s effectiveness has been shown to be less successful with high-risk offenders.

        Results for Phase I of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Program, which is based on R&R, showed the emerging pattern across evaluations of cognitive programs finding the largest effects for the smaller programs. When looking at the effects for those who completed the program, sig-nificant differences between groups appear. Those completing the Cognitive Skills Program had recidivism rates that were roughly 20% lower than comparison group members; on that basis, the results suggested that program completion substantially reduces offender recidivism. (Van Voorhis, P. 2001).

      There are some limitations to rehabilitation. There is an assumption that underlies reha-bilitation: that people can change through some type of planned intervention. The truth is that not all criminals can change. There are some individuals are resistant to treatment; others may just be prone to failure. Consequently people need to be patient and realize that behavior does not change overnight (Worrall, J. L. 2008). Americans tend to be somewhat impatient with respect to crime control, wanting quick fixes, but the reality is rehabilitation rarely works in the short term, and it requires significant commitments by those providing it, those receiving it, and those who will live, work, and associate with rehabilitated offenders (Worrall, J. L. 2008).

                   An analysis of re-introduction to society programs, or the lack thereof

     Probation and parole can be thought of as means to an end because; they are intended to put someone on the road toward rehabilitation, treatment, reintegration, and other goals. In other words, probation and parole are intended to change offenders so that they don’t continue to commit crimes. When returning offenders can find and keep legitimate employment, they are more likely to be able to pay restitution to their victims, support their children and avoid crime (Worrall, J. L. 2008).

     Devastating consequences; psychological, physical, spiritual damage even criminal acts can be aftermath of the misuse of drugs, this is indisputable. Some people abuse drugs and alcohol to escape or alleviate aversive states of anxiety or depression. The importance of educating those who are substance abusers, to the negative effects of drugs, and methods used to avoid the use of drugs and alcohol, is of vital importance. Possibly the proper extended medical help, and mental therapy might be of great support in the process of reentering society.

    Ex-convicts are ostracized, hence many former prisoners or parolees resort to a former life of crime and or self medication and escapism through drugs, as well as to the bad influences of their environment. Work agencies dedicated to helping establish these people back into society should be helping, in conjunction with having state or federal tax breaks (deductions) for em-ployers who hire the formally incarcerated for a required period of time, as an incentive, it this way the released prisoners can become reestablished and successful.

     There is a stigma after one serves there time in prison. Some feel, records for rehabilitated criminals should be unavailable to the public and employers after they have served their time and have gone through rehabilitation, after a period of time establishing a secured position in society. There should be as many follow-ups as necessary for counseling and continued therapy if necessary so that the ex-prisoner can make an adjustment back into society again, hopefully we will have less of a recidivism rate thereby reducing costs and the potential threat to public safety.

                       Current approaches to protect the public upon a prisoner’s release.

      Probation departments play a dual role in the criminal justice system. Probation officers are charged with both protecting public safety and rehabilitating offenders. As protectors of public safety, probation officers act as law enforcement officers, responsible for monitoring probationers’ activities and ensuring that probationers comply with court-ordered conditions of probation. In many states, probation officers are sworn peace officers and, as such, possess much the same authority as police officers. Undeniably, probation officers are quite often conflicted in two competing directions: the law enforcement direction or the social service direction (Worrall, J. L. 2008).

      Offenders placed in an Intensive supervised probation (ISP) are supervised by probation officers who have smaller caseloads (an average of 29 per officer in 2001), and provide more frequent contacts through a combination of office reporting by offenders and home and work visits by the officer. The intensified supervision allows for enhancing the goal of incapacitation, in view of the fact that the additional contacts reduce the opportunity for slipping into criminal behavior and because the number of contacts required disrupts the daily lives of offenders. It can enhance rehabilitation, because officers with smaller caseloads can provide counseling or follow-up on treatment plans for the offenders they supervise. In a review of the effectiveness of intensive supervision for both probationers and parolees, the findings were mixed in terms of the positive results from ISP programs. In a review of fourteen counties in nine states, Petersilia and Turner found that judges placed high-risk probationers in the programs rather than diverting of-fenders from prison. The ISP participants were watched more closely (having more contacts with their supervising officers) and, while this did not result in more arrests, there were significantly more technical violations (70 percent for the ISP group and 40 percent for regular probationers), which resulted in 27 percent of the ISP participants being returned to prison or jail compared to only 19 percent of regular probationers at the end of one year. However, when the ISP supervi-sion was combined with drug treatment, community service, and employment programs with surveillance, recidivism rates were 10 to 20 percent lower than for those who did not participate in such activities. Another analysis of 175 evaluations of ISP programs also found that combining surveillance with treatment resulted in reduced recidivism (Seiter 2008).

         New Proposals to Help Protect the Public and Ensure That A Prison Does Not Re-offend Upon Release.

     Advances in supervision technology such as Global Positioning System (GPS) monitors, rapid-result drug tests and ATM-like reporting kiosks offer authorities new technologies to monitor the whereabouts and activities of offenders in the community. These capabilities are giving lawmakers, judges and prosecutors greater confidence that they can protect public safety and hold offenders accountable with sanctions other than prison ((Seiter 2008).

         Over the past decade, state legislatures began to take another step in controlling sexual offenders and protecting potential victims (especially children) from them by passing a new type of mental disorder law that allows a diagnosis of sex offenders as sexually violent predators.When a person is convicted of a sex offense, he or she receives a specific sentence for that crime. Once the inmate serves his time and is nearing release, the state files a petition to have him involuntarily and indefinitely committed to a mental institution or special correctional setting that is a blend of a prison and a mental institution. The process is called recommitment, it includes the completion of an evaluation by mental health professionals, and a probable cause hearing is held to determine whether to label the offender a sexually violent predator. Most juris-dictions require that the offender be judged to suffer from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes it likely he will continue to commit acts of sexual violence, even though there are no specific professional criteria that can objectively be considered. If so labeled, once finishing his prison sentence, he is confined in the mental health facility until he is judged by mental health professionals to no longer be a danger to the community. By 2005, sixteen states had passed laws to involuntarily commit sexually violent predators (Seiter)

     It would be a good idea is to analyze the data that suggests that (82 percent) of prisoners had prior drug use and (93 percent) had been involved in substance abuse treatment. A significant number (33 percent) were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime, (59 percent) are poor, with reporting a monthly income of less than $1,000, monthly. Over one-third of the prison population is reported to have a physical or mental disability The study also suggested the prisoners are undereducated, having a high school education or less (86.9 percent) (Seiter, R. P. 2008). This statistical portrait draws a vividly accurate profile of what and who should be the focal points of rehabilitation, and an indication of what has to be accomplished if we want to reduce recidivism and make the communities safer.

      Recidivism is implicated in some of the most fundamental reasons why we incarcerate-rehabilitation and specific deterrence. In addition, the implications of recidivism studies are not trivial. Marginal reductions in recidivism can have dramatic social and economic benefits. A reduction in recidivism could reduce payments from the public purse for new prison beds and lower the social and economic costs of victimization (Gaes, G. G. 2005).

     Sexual victimization of children and adults is a significant treatment and public policy problem in the United States. To deal with increasing concerns regarding sex offender recidivism, nine states have passed legislation since 1996 authorizing the use of either chemical or physical castration. (Scott, C. L. and Holmberg, T. 2003). In most statutes, a repeat offender’s eligibility for probation or parole is linked to acceptance of mandated hormonal therapy. Future legal challenges to this wave of legislation will probably include arguments that such laws violate constitutional rights guaranteed to the offender by the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. When the promise of freedom is predicated on mandated treatment, the clinician must carefully evaluate the validity of informed consent (Scott, C. L. and Holmberg, T. 2003).

                        Privatization vs. Government Correction system

       Interestingly Privatization of prison is not a new idea, San Quentin prison, was the first facility constructed and operated by a private provider in the 1850s. Private entrepreneurs per-suaded state officials that the facility could best be operated under a long-term lease arrangement with an entity that had experience in law enforcement. Even back then the debate centered on costs, with the argument made that a private-sector entity would be less expensive and less corrupt than the government. However, in that particular case, after a number of major scandals surfaced surrounding the mismanagement of the facility by the private provider, the state decided to turn the facility over to the control of state government (Austin, J. and Coventry, G 2008).

        In the case of cost comparisons, findings of no real difference in conditions of confinement have their critics and are far from being generally accepted as valid. Perhaps most controversial is CCA’s involvement in a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is a powerful force in the promotion of the conservative policy agenda, including tougher sentencing rules, among state legislators. CCA has been a corporate member of ALEC and a member of its Criminal Justice Task Force, which helps write model bills. Through its support of ALEC, CCA is helping to create greater demand for its services as a result of changes in state policies that keep more people behind bars for longer periods (Mattera, P, and Khan, M. 2003).

       In spite of the lack of conclusive empirical evidence on cost or program efficiency, the problem stream carried the privatization idea along, and the number of private prison beds under contract increased steadily, from 15,300 in 1990 to 145,160 in 1999 ( Culp, R. F. 2005).

       In meta-analysis of reports (Lundahl, B. W. et-al 2008) on head-to-head comparisons between an identifiable privately managed and publicly managed prison(s) identifying 12 studies. Indicators of cost of confinement and confinement quality were assessed. Results suggest privately managed prisons provide no clear benefit or detriment. The conclusion was: Cost savings from privatizing prisons are not guaranteed and appear minimal. Quality of confinement is similar across privately and publicly managed systems, but publicly managed prisons delivering slightly better skills training and having slightly fewer inmate grievances (Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C, B., C., Harris, N. and Vleet, R .V 2008).

     The bombardment of intellectual and academic criticism has not been able to halt the momentum toward greater incarceration created by the last two decades of uncontrolled spending on corrections, impelled by longer and mandatory prison sentences, and immense increases in the number of those incarcerated for drug offenses. The investment of private capital in the form of correctional privatization, plus the growth of exceedingly powerful corrections unions, in combination, compounded with an unmistakably simplistic and inflammatory public demands egged on by the media in conjunction with the political discourse on the value of prisons, had all but guaranteed the continued growth in incarceration (Jacobson M. 2005).

     Some feel the pendulum is swinging the other way now, due to the slowdown of taxes caused by the bad economy, and the fact that prisons costs are consuming a greater percentage of the budget, politicians have now started to look to different cost saving alternatives “We have come to a point where $50 billion a year, is consuming 1 in every 15 general fund dollars” (Western, B. & Pettit, B. 2010).

     As the private prisons seek to make a profit, the programs reducing recidivism and re-habilitation might possibly be cut in size and quality if that happens the gains we are making in recidivism might be affected by the privatized corporation s. Various Political agendas such as the ALEC and the Criminal Justice Task Force, helps write model bills., private corporations policies have been interjected into the Correctional system through lobbying and laws. Since 1973 the privatization agenda has influenced our laws and the public perceptions about dealing with crime and punishment, the war on drugs has managed to incarcerate a population of poor undereducated, vastly minority, drug and alcohol addicted, mentally disturbed people. We have a prison population that has grown at a staggeringly high rate of 600 percent, costing us $50 billion a year, consuming 1 in every 15 general fund dollars (The Pew Charitable Trusts 2010). Those policies have been a failure and need to change, because when criminals keep returning to society without having been rehabilitated , committing the same crimes over and over again, and being returned to the prisons, it not only costs US tax payers money but the puts safety of the free population into jeopardy. We need to get lobbyists out of the law making business. Privatization of the prisons at the very least has been revealed to be manipulative of our laws and inflationary of our budget.

                                                            Research

Austin, J. and Coventry, G (2008). Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons Office of Justice Pro-grams.; Complex American Behavioral Scientist, January 2008; vol. 51, 5: pp. 625-644.Retrieved on October 5, 2010 from www.ojp.usdoj.gov.

Bower, B. M. (N.A.) Cellmate suicides: A look at current treatment programs for adolescents in correctional and detention Facilities, University of Southern California Journal of Law and Society Retrieved on October 11, 2010 from pun.sagepub.com

Council of State Governments Justice Center (2007). Justice Reinvestment State Brief: Kansas, New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center Retrieved on October 23, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/.

Culp, R. F. (2005). The Rise and Stall of Prison Privatization: An Integration of Policy Analysis Perspectives Criminal Justice Policy Review 2005 16: 412 DOI: 10.1177/0887403405275837 Retrieved on 10/11/2010 from cjp.sagepub.com

Feeley M.M. (2002). Entrepreneurs of punishment: The legacy of privatization Punishment & Society, July 2002; vol. 4, 3: pp. 321-344. Retrieved on October 11, 2010 from pun.sagepub.com

Gaes, G. G. (2005, February). Prison privatization in Florida: promise, premise, and performance. Criminology & public policy, 4(1), 83-88. Retrieved from the ProQuest Database

Jacobson M. (2005). Downsizing prisons: how to reduce crime and end mass incarceration New York, NY, USA: NYU Press, 2005. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10137182&ppg=5

Justice Reinvestment State Brief: Texas. Retrieved on October 23, 2010 from http://nicic.gov/Library/022689

Lundahl, B. W., Kunz, C, B., C., Harris, N. and Vleet, R .V (2008) Prison Privatization: A Meta-analysis of Cost and Quality of Confinement Indicators Research on Social Work Prac-tice, July 2009; vol. 19, 4: pp. 383-394. Retrieved on October 11, 2010 from http://online.sagepub.com

Mattera, P., Khan, M. Nathan, S. (2003) Corrections Corporation of America: A critical look at its first twenty years Washington, DC: Good Jobs first, 2003 Retrieved on October 11, 2010 from psu.edu

National Assessment of Structured Sentencing Bureau of Justice Assistance: Structured Sentenc-ing, Retrieved September 27, 2010 from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/strsent.pdf 10.1177/0887403405275837

Noonan, M. (2010). Deaths in Custody Reporting Program Mortality in Local Jails, 2000–2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics July 2010, NCJ 222988 Retrieved October 24,2010 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcrp/dictabs.cfm.

Scott, C. L. and Holmberg, T. (2003). Castration of sex Offenders: Prisoners’ rights versus public safety; the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law retrieved from the internet on October23, 2019

Seiter, R. P. (2008). Corrections: An introduction (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 0-13-224905-7

The Pew Charitable Trusts (2010) Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010, Washington, DC Retrieved September 29, 2010, from the research library

Van Voorhis, P (2001) The Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment Outcome Evaluation Phase One; Division of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati, retrieved on October 17, 2010 from http://nicic.gov/Library/017251

Western, B. and Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19,146-147. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2112053851).

Worrall, J. L. (2008). Crime control in America: What works? (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Educa-tion, Inc. ISBN: 978-0-205-59339-2